I guess I'm obliged to comment on this blogosphere hubbub as my blog does deal with race differences, though as readers have noticed, the blog views group disparities as axiomatic. In general, I find this debate incredibly boring and predictable. We've all spent our time in the trenches of liberal forums. We've seen the leftist histrionics when confronted with a fact that undermines their entire platform. We've argued against unbelievably flawed nonsense, like David Shenk's Genius in Us All. This is no different, except these liberals have fancy positions at top sites like Gawker and The Atlantic. I applaud the people who have the energy to take on the challenge, but I will abstain from direct engagement; it's just mentally unhealthy and exhausting. My general thoughts follow:
1) "OneSTDV" originally meant "One Standard Deviation" after the fundamental constant of sociology. I began this blog primarily to champion HBD and to consider the political implications of inherited differences, both racial and personal. Around that time, I had become absolutely enamored with HBD and devoured Sailer's archives as a result. I had then cut my teeth on leftist forums and blogs and felt that starting my own site would give me the opportunity to spread knowledge in this regard. But I slowly expanded my focus and for some time, "OneSTDV" has been merely a brand name with no particular meaning. I have thought also about adopting a proper pseudonym to reflect this.
2) I wrote a large number of posts early on regarding the most common liberal creationist arguments. I'll link some of them below as they are relevant here (the first one is probably the most important):
Basic Argument for Biological Race and Differences in IntelligenceThere's so much data out there too. To keep it brief, let me just point to La Griffe du Lion's most comprehensive article.
Parallels between Liberal and Religious Creationism
Is Belief in Racial Intelligence Differences Racist?
Genes Linked to Intelligence
Emotional Basis of "Acting White"
Within Group Variation vs Between Group Variation
Dumbest Way to Account for Achievement Gap: Baby Doll Test
The "Cultural Bias" of Standardized Tests
3) Primarily, I just find the whole race-intelligence debate unbelievably stupid because it's so damn obvious. Arguing about the existence of inherited cognitive ability and racial differences in intelligence is like arguing about whether gravity exists or if the sun rises in the east. I know it's important to debate this issue because liberal creationism underpins so much (all?) of our current political, academic and economic landscape, but for the well informed and convinced amongst us, the debate is just mind-numbing.
4) I've expanded my focus beyond HBD because I've begun to view politics in a different light. I had begun my conscious conservatism on the basis of the practical, as in restricted immigration due to low-skilled immigrants. Yet I've progressed into viewing politics as a moral matter, especially in regards to the moral autonomy of racial and ethnic groups. In sum, I believe all racial and ethnic groups have the collective moral freedom to define their own nations and thus my conservatism is grounded in this principle as opposed to viewing nations as large-scale corporations. While I undoubtedly regard intelligence and personality as inexorably important aspects of society ("demography is destiny"), I prefer to focus on more transcendent notions like ethnic self-determination and cultural health. I basically just assume race differences, as in whites and Asians have sufficient cognitive capital to produce stable societies, while other races can not do so independently. This is a given; the more interesting idea is how we proceed and on what moral grounds do we justify our actions.
And finally, yes - I am a fat loser living in my mother's basement.
49 comments:
***I basically just assume race differences, as in whites and Asians have sufficient cognitive capital to produce stable societies, while other races can not do so independently. This is a given; the more interesting idea is how we proceed and on what moral grounds do we justify our actions. ***
This is a reason why I think people who are HBD aware have a duty to spread their knowledge when these online debates arise. Assuming groups are interchangeable is a threat to the future of western societies.
I liked the refreshingly no-nonsense defense of Sullivan by Rand Simberg.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=38761
But...but...white wimen loves black mens, and black mens be havin all dem babies n sheet
reed lies my teecher tells me by steven seegal
I feel your pain, One. I wrote up a bunch of stuff last night, some of which I might post. But it's all just random bits that stuck out at me. Half the leftoid comments I just skip when the first sentence doesn't have a good hook. I go by intuition and pluck out stuff people seem to be fighting over, or stuff in the vicinity that catches my eye. More like a cat playing with a mouse than anything systematic.
The problem is, when you're dealing with leftoids who want to "argue" this stuff, you're dealing with true believers. At best they're just going to slink away. They sure as hell aren't going to spread the word among their fellow leftoids so they can all up their game and make the conversation interesting. They just want to echo one another for a quick two minute hate and, if attacked, ward off cognitive dissonance.
I really wish they would up their game, though; who'd have thought studied ignorance, utter tediousness, and thoughtlessness would make for such an effective defense strategy?
And yes, the fact that ethnic self-determination is in no way dependent on the racial gap in IQ really saps a lot of the urgency from the issue. Like you, I base my arguments directly on arguments about rights, not racial differences in ability.
If white men are so damn intelligent then how cme People of Color outbreed them and cherry pick their women?
"If white men are so damn intelligent then how cme People of Color outbreed them and cherry pick their women?"
"Cherry-pick"? Is that what we're calling rape now?
media personality (Andrew Sullivan) supports racial differences in intelligence and liberals go hysterical
So do libertarians such as Instapundit.
@GL Piggy
Not agreeing with the troll, but living in Texas you must be aware of the situation.
Weren't you complaining of white coworkers who get knocked up by NAMs on your very own blog? In fact, I'm pretty sure you yourself stated someone in your own family had a half-black kid.
"And finally, yes - I am a fat loser living in my mother's basement."
Eat less and get her to buy you a pair of 20 pound dumbbells.
Well, anyway it's some consolation that nobody reads The Atlantic. Even before digital, when I was a big magazine reader and spent time at newsstands, I never saw a single person perusing The Atlantic. There's got to be some financial story there, such as some foundation spending tens of millions of dollars over the years keeping it alive.
how cme People of Color ... cherry pick their women?
I know this is a troll but still, I think it's remarkable that in 30 years of following the issue, I've actually seen exactly one (1!) good-looking white woman with a black guy. It was on the Berkeley campus in 1977. He was a basketball player and she was a Tri-Delt. Since that time, every single interracial coupling I've seen, without exception, has involved a white pig. Random odds really should have been higher than that.
@Not a hacker
Come to Houston. You'll see it every day.
Excellent summary of the situation. I've commented on and linked to this post at Ex-Army HERE.
If yellow men are so damn intelligent then how cme People of Color outbreed them and cherry pick their women?
FTFY. But to answer your question, oysters out-breed them, too.
Not a hacker, I remember you telling that story at Roissy's blog, but there you said it had happened the previous day, not in the 70s...
"And finally, yes - I am a fat loser living in my mother's basement."
I've always found it interesting that we "racists" are all fat, jobless losers who live in our moms' basements, and are angry because we can't get laid; yet we somehow have the power to oppress black people worldwide.
... we "racists" are all fat, jobless losers who live in our moms' basements ...
The beings intended to benefit from the "racism" gambit are also mostly fat and jobless. They would live with their mothers, except their mothers (ahem) move around a lot, so they stay with grandma instead.
... we "racists" are all fat, jobless losers who live in our moms' basements ...
The beings intended to benefit from the "racism" gambit are also mostly fat and jobless. They would live with their mothers, except their mothers (ahem) move around a lot, so they stay with grandma instead.
T. R. Fehrenbach has written some books you might find interesting. Especially his magnum opus about Texas.
Primarily, I just find the whole race-intelligence debate unbelievably stupid because it's so damn obvious. Arguing about the existence of inherited cognitive ability and racial differences in intelligence is like arguing about whether gravity exists or if the sun rises in the east.
^^Actually what you present here is a strawman- an easy target to "refute." Liberal scholars do not at all dispute that SOME differences in intelligence are inherited. Of course. Smart parents will, on the average, produce smart kids, just as tall parents on the average, will produce tall kids. No credible liberal scholar disputes that. To say that liberals are "denying" this is a totally bogus strawman, and is typical HBD distortion and disinformation.
The crucial part of the debate is (a) HOW MUCH of intelligence is due to genes or inherited, and (b) whether the differences in question are "racial" in a biological sense, as opposed to social construct "Racial" labeling, and (c) whether what is defined as "intelligence" on 20th century iq tests is really a consistent or credible measure of cognitive ability, or indeed definition of "intelligence" at all. These are the crucial parts of the debate not the strawman you present. On these three crucial parts of the debate the jury is very much out, and simplistic HBD claims and fantasies in this area are often wrong, or seriously misleading and/or distorted.
I basically just assume race differences, as in whites and Asians have sufficient cognitive capital to produce stable societies, while other races can not do so independently. This is a given; the more interesting idea is how we proceed and on what moral grounds do we justify our actions.
^^It is not a "given" at all. As credible conservative scholars show, Native Americans and Africans have long produced stable civilizations with spectacular accomplishments, from the pyramids of the Valley of Mexico, the the Pyramids of the Nile Valley. Said Nile Valley was primarily populated by indigenous tropical Africans, as modern mainstream scholarship overwhelmingly shows (Zakrewski 2007, Raxter and Ruff 2008, Yurco 1989, Brace 2005, Kemp 2005, Vogel 1997, Lovell 1999, et al.). Indeed the closest cousins ethnically to Ancient Egyptians are Nubians, and Egypt produced the most stable, long-standing continuous civilization in human history.
Even more ironic, conservative geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza, show that Europeans are not a primary race at all, but hybrids, one-third African, two-thirds Asian. And even more ironic,early Europeans resembled tropical Africans, and the incoming Neolithics that introduced advanced agriculture, advanced metallurgy and other innovations to Europe, ALSO resembled tropical Africans (Brace 2005, Holliday 2010, Trinkhaus 1981, et al). In short, supposed "cognitive capital" in Europe has its foundation in peoples who resembled tropical Africans.
See:
Tropical African basis of ancient Egypt
http://nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2010/09/blog-post_06.html
Data on the peopling of the Nile Valley by indigenous tropical Africans
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9678/tropicaldiversitymelak1.jpg
Head to head comparisons between European and tropical Africans-
Result: ANcient Egyptians cluster much more closely with tropical Africans than Europeans
http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/3q8x30897t2cs/nb0mms/badarianfaceflatnesscrania.jpg
EUropeans are not a primary race at all but hybrids between Asians and Europeans conservative geneticists show
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7963/eurohybrids.jpg
Early Europeans and the incoming Neolithic innovators to Europe resembled tropical Africans
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3941/backflowblues.jpg
The idea that we are all equal coincides with the rise in the belief that the Nation-State is/was a bad thing. Two World Wars and the rise of Marxism brought that belief into the mainstream. Nation-States protect those within from those without. By human nature or necessity, they were comprised of peoples who spoke the same language and looked the same.
America skewed that early on by allowing immigrants from most of Europe--those immigrants carried their own peculiar ethnic looks, culture and languages. Some of those cultural aspects were incorporated into American culture, but most were not as the nation remained largely WASP until 1965.
The hippies of the 6o's honestly believed that nations cause war--nations seeking to impose their version of life on others. Marxists believe that true communism is not possible as long as there is one holdout--America being the biggest and most dangerous. Thus, America, but the West in general, had to go. Too prosperous as it is to ever want Marxist revolution, they had to be brought along slowly. Thus began the brainwashing that all are equal and the same--that allowed the gates to the Nation-State to be not just opened, but pulled down. That in turn lead to multiculturalist, highly divisive society we now inhabit. That society, in turn, opens the door to a Marxist Utopia. Never forget that it is Marxist maxim that the existing society must be torn down in order to rebuild it in the image of Marx.
If the white man can be made to believe he is no better than anyone else, it then follows that his culture and civilization are no better than anyone else'. Thus, there is no reason to maintain his society as a bulwark against the savage barbarism that exists virtually everywhere else in the world. If you tear down his walls, he is left defenseless and can be brought down--brought under control. This is an important aspect of the whole idea of equality of peoples. As long as America remained white and restricted it's borders to only other whites, it was impervious to the assault. It did not matter if the Asian (or whatever) population ballooned to 6 billion on it's own, we were safe within our vast borders--backed up by Canada to the north. Our walls and thus our defenses had to be broken.
And they have--and now we are laid bare.Our Nation has been ransacked, pillaged and plundered. Our accumulated wealth has either been taxed away to feed the barbarian hordes or left the nation out of fear or survival. What remains is a rotten shell waiting for a hard wind to smash it flat. When it comes, the end will either be a murmur, as the nation quietly breaks up, or a loud bang, as it descends into chaos. My own view is a murmur. The center of the nation, from north to south, can hold and hold on it's own. It has the least amount of infiltration and vast resources to maintain itself. It also, for the most part, is already politically bent toward "The Right".
If I'm right, hopefully this time, they'll get it right.
Too Tall Jones--
here is a very simplistic idea for you. I thought of it as a child in 6th grade when first taught about Darwin. If, as they say, "we all came out of Africa", then that would mean that sub-Saharan Africans are the basis of human kind, right? Of course you agree, it gives you "legitimacy". Of course, it then follows, that those races that came later are more highly evolved. Thus Asians are more evolved than Africans and Europeans are higher evolved still.
I know, I know, thats not what they teach in African studies, but it is the logical conclusion if one is a Darwinist. See, recent finds in China point to this--this explains the white man's superior abstract thinking ability as well (think three dimensional art, all of the world's inventions, etc.)--
intelligence is not enough.
Now, I personally have never believed the "Out Of Africa" theory. Largely because there has not been enough time. but also because it stinks of PC science and, lastly and perhaps most importantly, I read the fine print. And the fine print on the genetic based computer model that produced that outcome 5 or 6 years ago specifically stated that there was an equal probability that the races arose spontaneously on separate continents. I go with the later since it is most likely the reason why Africans resemble African apes and Chinese people resemble Asian apes and the white man reflects God.
RobertB said...
The idea that we are all equal coincides with the rise in the belief that the Nation-State is/was a bad thing.
^Actually this is incorrect. The notion of equality took a big BOOST with the RISE of the nation state as a good thing. The cry of the French Revolution, (Liberte. Egalite, Fraternite) was characteristic of notions of equality rising with the notion of the nation state replacing monarchies or church regimes. You have it backwards.
Nation-States protect those within from those without. By human nature or necessity, they were comprised of peoples who spoke the same language and looked the same.
^^You are woefully misinformed. There have been numerous nations where significant segments of the population speak a different language and do not look the same. Switzerland undermines you claim, as does Belgium, regarding language. Russia, whether in Soviet or Non-Soviet versions also debunks your claim. SO too does America.
Too prosperous as it is to ever want Marxist revolution, they had to be brought along slowly. Thus began the brainwashing that all are equal and the same--that allowed the gates to the Nation-State to be not just opened, but pulled down.
You are once again misinformed. The "all are equal" notion goes back to the French Revolution in the 1700s, or even before. It did not begin with Marxists of the 20th century. And ironically, one of the groups of people that opened up the gates of the "nation-state" in a wide way were WASPS. Influential WASPS strongly supported immigration for various reasons, including CHinese immigration in 19th century California. (See: Rethinking ethnicity: majority groups and dominant minorities. By Eric P. Kaufmann 2004) You simply do not have your facts right.
This is an important aspect of the whole idea of equality of peoples. As long as America remained white and restricted it's borders to only other whites, it was impervious to the assault.
^^But America has never remained totally white, nor has it ever restricted its borders to only other whites. The fantasy state you claim never existed in the real world.
Our Nation has been ransacked, pillaged and plundered. Our accumulated wealth has either been taxed away to feed the barbarian hordes or left the nation out of fear or survival.
^What a bunch of BS. And has it ever occurred to you that the main consumer of taxes is other white people? The billions in taxes that go in to school systems, furnishing a nice living for mostly white schol teachers were imposed by white people, for the benefit of other white people. Likewise the bulk of the money spent on welfare, does not reach the poor. About two--thirds is consumed by mostly white administrators, clerks and other bureaucrats, and the bulk of the beenficiaries of welfare are white. Indeed, in states where there is heavy black population, welfare benefits are lower than where whites are a majority.
From 1960 to 1990 for example, states with larger black welfare populations offered significantly LOWER welfare benefits, than in states with larger white populations. In essence, white welfare recipients saw greater amounts of aid given than blacks proportionately in said states, even though whites overall are better off than blacks, whether measured by income, net worth or family structure. Far from "undue" black benefit, white people got higher welfare payments in states where they were the majority welfare population, while the black share was cut where they were the majority. We keep hearing about massive legions of "undeserving" blacks on welfare, but the bottom line is that better off whites, proportionately, are feeding more extensively and profitably from the welfare trough than blacks. (See Gerald C. Wright. 1977. “Racism and Welfare Policy in America.” Social Science Quarterly 57(3): 718-30; Christopher Howard. 1999. “Field Essay: American Welfare Sate or States?.” Political Research Quarterly).
Robert B sez:
Of course, it then follows, that those races that came later are more highly evolved. Thus Asians are more evolved than Africans and Europeans are higher evolved still. I know, I know, thats not what they teach in African studies, but it is the logical conclusion if one is a Darwinist.
^It is the "logical conclusion" of one poorly informed. And you debunk your own racist arguments. The Native American 'races' came after European whites. They thus are more highly evolved people, according to your own reasoning.
Now, I personally have never believed the "Out Of Africa" theory. Largely because there has not been enough time. but also because it stinks of PC science
^Actually the Out of Africa model has been confirmed and replicated by conservative scientists who believe in race numerous times. See Cavalli-Sforza, 1994 in Genes, Languages and People for example. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
And the fine print on the genetic based computer model that produced that outcome 5 or 6 years ago specifically stated that there was an equal probability that the races arose spontaneously on separate continents.
^^LOL, then your "genetic based computer model" is the product of space aliens or an addled mind, most likely the latter. Pray tell, what credible scientist produced said "model" of "spontaneous" racial combustion? Give a name, date and citation and other "fine print".
Don't take too long.
We'll wait.
Crickets chirping...
@TTJ "In short, supposed "cognitive capital" in Europe has its foundation in peoples who resembled tropical Africans."
point being what? please reduce your excessive verbiage to reveal said point, if any. quibbling over the exact proportion of IQ being inherited or whether it exists doesn't change the observable fact - the world entire views european society, accomplishments and culture as superior and more desirable than any other. Which indisputably proves it to be so. There is no mass migration from western to any other culture. Nor will there be.
If only a small proportion of that was inherent, why can no other cultures emulate those accomplishments? (which at least in this case, can indisputably be attributed to one certain group of people)
RobetB said...
Nation-States protect those within from those without. ... Our Nation has been ransacked, pillaged and plundered.
I find this ironic coming from the man who gloated over U.S. corporations offshoring to "punish" the "ungrateful" American people for not being laissez-faire enough. You and your putative class are in no position to bemoan the loss of the nation-state.
Too Tall Jones is now my friggin' blog hero!
TTJ, I have ethusiastically added you to my daily blog reading --- Your rational and well administered attack on the "Hereditarian Biological Determinist" religion has truly made me smile.
If these kooks ever do go public with their half-shod quasi-science, I am sure that the logical opposition to them will be of rigor enough to send them back into the safety of "their mother's basements".
Kudos and much obliged!
the world entire views european society, accomplishments and culture as superior and more desirable than any other. Which indisputably proves it to be so. There is no mass migration from western to any other culture. Nor will there be.
If only a small proportion of that was inherent, why can no other cultures emulate those accomplishments? (which at least in this case, can indisputably be attributed to one certain group of people)
^^Mere presentism. Before the recent rise of Europe, China was the leading economic and technological nation as shown even by conservative scholars such as Thomas Sowell. Before the rise of Greece and ROme there was Egypt, and indeed, as credible Egyptologists like Frank Yurco show, the Greeks viewed Egyptian culture as highly desirable. Contrary to your blinkered view, the world changes and history reshuffles the standings of nations and peoples. That process will continue as over 1 trillion in US debt held by the Chinese will eventually show.
As to mass migrations, actually the mass migrations within Asia are the largest over the span of history, dwarfing anything within "the West".
And you are hopelessly misinformed as to your bogus claim: "why can no other cultures emulate those accomplishments?" Again, the peoples of Asia have not only emulated but surpassed Europe in numerous accomplishments. And in fact, Europe itself historically, is a massive borrower and copier and beneficiary of technologies developed elsewhere - from the key plant and animal domesticates introduced by the incoming Neolithic, to advanced improvements in metallurgy, pottery, construction etc. The peoples who brought such advances to Europe, resembled tropical Africans as credible scholars show (brace 2005, Holliday 2010, et al). The Greeks did what they did mostly on imported, not home grown technology. As the centuries rolled by there was the Arab era, again, benefitting Europe as technology from the east moved Westward to be adapted, copied and eventually improved, including advances in knowledge (the concept of zero for example is from India, algebra from the Middle East), steel-making, mining, engineering etc etc. Even the alphabet used by today;s Europeans is an import- derived from scripts developed in ancient Egypt, and modified by Semitic peoples like the Phonecians before finally filtering into Europe. Even the main European religion is something borrowed and copied from elsewhere- from a sub-tropical people in tn the Mideast. So spare me the talk about "emulation".. Who has borrowed and copied more than Europeans?
Ruby said...
Too Tall Jones is now my friggin' blog hero!
TTJ, I have ethusiastically added you to my daily blog reading --- Your rational and well administered attack on the "Hereditarian Biological Determinist" religion has truly made me smile.
Thanks Ruby. Again, the data I present is that of sober, conservative mainstream scholars. See more details and references at:
http://knol.google.com/k/mainstream-academic-research/hypocritical-hereditarianism-why-higher/3q8x30897t2cs/42#
Even more ironic, according to some conservative scientists:
EUropeans are not a primary race at all but hybrids between Asians and Europeans conservative geneticists show
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7963/eurohybrids.jpg
Being black, Too Tall Jones is suffering from confirmation bias. In his pathetic attempt to bolster his self esteem,and that of his brothas and sistas, he quotes researchers as if their conclusions were the final word on any subject. That's not how science works TooTall. But it's a mistake many afrocentric "scholars" make.
The OOA hypothesis is pure speculation, and genetic research "proves" no such origin. Anthropologists and geneticists have been engaged in a robust debate about this issue for years, with new discoveries being made every year.
I direct you to an excellent anthro blog Dienekes.blogspot.com. The second to last post addressed this very issue, with new evidence from the Arabian peninsula calling into question the entire theory of an OOA origin. Remember, an hypothesis is a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without the assumption of it's truth. I know your limited intellect has difficulty with this reality, but the final word about human origins has yet to be written, so stop acting like it has. Many prominent anthropologists have doubted the OOA theory from the beginning, based on finds in Eurasia strongly suggesting Erectus evolved outside of Africa. Basically, the fact that there is no archeological signature of an Out Of Africa expansion at 70k to 40k, while there are modern humans found everywhere by at least 40,000 years ago, and with several new finds in Arabia at 100,000 years old, suggests there was no expansion out of Africa.
Sorry Homey. Your triumphalist afrocentric nonsense doesn't carry any weight in the real world, not that you will ever admit it. I could go on and on with this, but it's pointless, because you are incapable of admitting that, on average, your glorious African brothas and sistas lack the intellectual depth to have a real debate about the issues.
In Response to Caleo :
I notice a curious lack of references in your triumphalist deterministic nonsense.
Care to present some definitive evidence for your claims?
Anon. 12:48- You should really do your own homework, but here are some leads for you.
NewScientist.com/article/dn18093-chinese-challenge-to-out-of-africa-theory.html
Also see : Analysis of the full brain case shape confirms the idea that dispersal from a single population could not explain the early modern human variability, but does not confirm ties to regional archaic humans. Gunz, P., et. al. (2009-04-14). "Early modern human diversity suggests subdivided population structure and a complex out-of-Africa scenario". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106 (15): 6094–6098. Bibcode 2009PNAS..106.6094G. doi:10.1073/pnas.0808160106. PMC 2669363. PMID 19307568.
Also:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/5502/293
Correction: hybrids between Africans and Asians
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7963/eurohybrids.jpg
and:
Early Europeans and the incoming Neolithic innovators to Europe resembled tropical Africans
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3941/backflowblues.jpg
Did Europe develop its own innovations and creations? Of course. But let us not forget the massive borrowing and emulation of Europe from the rest of the world over the sapn of history.
Caleo sez:
Being black, Too Tall Jones is suffering from confirmation bias.
Being dubious, you suffer from an excess of hot air.
The OOA hypothesis is pure speculation, and genetic research "proves" no such origin. Anthropologists and geneticists have been engaged in a robust debate about this issue for years, with new discoveries being made every year.
^^No the OOA is not "pure speculation." It is hard science. PErhaps you should learn to read. THe OOA hypothesis has been supported multiple times, and the weight of scientific data lies with it. Is there debate on migration events aand patterns? Of course, but not about the fact that modern humans originated in Africa. That part is settled science. But your pseudo scientific racism would never nunderstand this.
I direct you to an excellent anthro blog Dienekes.blogspot.com.
lmao.. I have been to Dienekes blog many a time and have cleaned his clock in open debate on this pesudo scientism. When losing, he quickly cuts off comments and only allows his favorites to post. Dinkenes has been debunked numerous times. He just wont show it on his blog.
The second to last post addressed this very issue, with new evidence from the Arabian peninsula calling into question the entire theory of an OOA origin.
^^Curiously, neither you or the first poster ever cite or describe this "new evidence." And your claim about "calling into question" doesnt mean diddly. Theories about mystical Atlantis "call into question" evolutionary theory, but what you beleive is irrelevant. What counts is the hard scholarship at hand. Demonstrate where your "new evidence" shows anatomically modern humans did not originate in Africa.
Don't try to wriggle away, let's see what you got. BRing your new evidence and cite it showing where it denies the origin of modern humans in Africa.
Don't take too long..
We'll wait...
Basically, the fact that there is no archeological signature of an Out Of Africa expansion at 70k to 40k, while there are modern humans found everywhere by at least 40,000 years ago, and with several new finds in Arabia at 100,000 years old, suggests there was no expansion out of Africa.
^^Laughable, bogus nonsense. Since you doubt AMHs originated in Africa just one example will suffice to debunk your racialist fantasies. Even more ironic, the data shows that the people you claim to be non-existent in Africa, in fact, expanded from there, into Arabia. QUOTE:
The timing of the dispersal of anatomically modern humans (AMH) out of Africa is a fundamental question in human evolutionary studies. Existing data suggest a rapid coastal exodus via the Indian Ocean rim around 60,000 years ago. We present evidence from Jebel Faya, United Arab Emirates, demonstrating human presence in eastern Arabia during the last interglacial. The tool kit found at Jebel Faya has affinities to the late Middle Stone Age in northeast Africa..
--- Armitage, et al, 2011. The SOuthern ROute, Science 38, vol 331
Well now looks like you lose "homes"... You have produced nothing, while I give you your "Arabian factor" with credible scholars showing precisely what you claim doesn't exist.
Let me school you some more. You point to several new finds in Arabia at 100,000 years old and claim that this "proves" modern himans could not have originated in Africa. Dufus! The 100,000 year old fossils are not anatomically modern humans. And archaic humans ALSO migrated from Africa to other parts of the world. Sheesh.. how incompetent can you be? This is Evolution 101.
End of today's lesson.
Not the end of today's lesson, at least not until you learn how to spell.
I also refer back to my second comment here.
Your angry rebuttal refused to address the articles I linked to. I refer to Dienekes because it's a great jumping off point that links to published research and has a lively roundup of comments from every possible position.
You obviously didn't read my first comment, as I said the debate is far from settled. Just because you think all scientific inquiry must end once it reaches conclusions that confirm your bias, doesn't mean real research doesn't continue.
Thankfully, real science marches on. And your infantile response laced with misspellings goes a long way in telling us what your really about...another empty headed Afrocentrist who thinks clinging to the OOA hypothesis means modern Africans can take credit for the entire edifice of modern civilization, a civilization built by Europeans. Sub Saharan Africans are stone age peoples, and all statistical, historical and anecdotal evidence shows they are incapable of sustaining, let alone creating, a large scale, complex civilization.
Regardless if fully modern humans originated in Africa or not, the adaptations that Eurasian peoples made to their environment gave them the means to create the most spectacular material civilizations this Earth has ever seen.
Now the lesson is finished.
Mexico/Central America is the
way it because it is full of
Mexican/Central Americans. South
Africa/Mozambique are the way they
are because they full of blacks.
What brown, black, yellow country
EVER became free/profitable using
non-white inventions/technology???
For some reason my response to Too Tall's second misspelled screed was posted and then deleted after.
One, have a violated some unspoken rule about responding to Afrocentric nonsense, or is this a system glitch ?
After having my second response deleted I will reiterate the point for Too Tall. Even if all modern humans descend from an OOA migration, which is still hotly debated as referenced by the papers I linked to, the fact remains that Eurasians adapted to their environments, and those adaptations gave them the skills to eventually create the most advanced material civilization this earth has ever known.
Afrocentrists like Too Tall use the OOA hypothesis to make a claim to all of the advances that Europeans have created. The sad fact is that Sub Saharan Africans are stone age peoples, and all historical, statistical and anecdotal evidence points to their being incapable of sustaining, let alone creating, a complex, large scale civilization.
The sad fact is that Sub Saharan Africans are stone age peoples, and all historical, statistical and anecdotal evidence points to their being incapable of sustaining, let alone creating, a complex, large scale civilization.
^Complete nonsense. Ethiopia is below the Sahara and is thus "sub-Saharan", not to mention the African kingdoms of the West like Mali. And ancient Egypt was populated fundamentally until the later eras of Hyskos, PErsians, Greeks, etc by tropical African peoples from south of the Sahara- as even "Afrocentric" critic Mary Lefkowitz attests. Your claim is complete nonsense, and no one posting here has used OOA theory the way you say it is used. HEre is Mary LEfkowitz supporting what I say. Read it and weep.
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9025/lefkowitzdebunk.jpg
Even if all modern humans descend from an OOA migration, which is still hotly debated
There is very little serious debate on this score. THe OOA hypothesis for modern humans has been extensively supported by genetic and fossil evidence, and is accepted by a majority of credible scholars. Most of the debate today centers around migratory events.
The references you cite do little to contradict OOA theory above. LEt's look at them:
1) The Chinese claim-
In fact your link shows 2 major scholars in the field disputing the unconfirmed Chinese claim with one noting that too often for China's scientists in this field: QUOTE: "You need to keep in mind that 'Homo sapiens' for most Chinese scholars is not limited to anatomically modern humans," he says. "For many of them, it is all 'post Homo erectus,' humans."
Its been 2 years since the China find, and it STILL has not been confirmed. So much for any claims of "conclusive" proof..
2) The Brain case study:
In actuality the study does NOT support what you are claiming at all. Let look at it: -quote--
Analysis of the full brain case shape confirms the idea that dispersal from a single population could not explain the early modern human variability, but does not confirm ties to regional archaic humans..
As can be seen, the point of issue is if there was a SINGLE population dispersal. This is nothing special. OOA scenarios have long postulated MULTIPLE dispersals of modern humans from Africa. All your "proof" shows is a question mark on the single group scenario. It does not touch the central fact of OOA origins.
Furthermore the brain case study notes: -quote- " but does not confirm ties to regional archaic humans.."
^ In short, ironically, you just debunked some HBD arguments with your own supporting reference. Your "supporting" info says that the finding does NOT confirm ties to regional archaic humans." There goes the HDB multi-regional racial model.. whoops...
Gunz Study- Early modern human dispersals..
Here again, you just debunked yourself with your own data. Gunz et al. do not question the OOA origin, but rather than there was a SINGLE exit of Africans. You are trying sleight of hand- implying that said studies contradict OOA, but in fact they accept OOA. The debate is on the dispersal patterns of the OOA migrants, not their point of origin which is Africa. QUOTE from Gunz:
"Rather than a single out-of-Africa dispersal scenario, we suggest that early modern humans were already divided into different populations in Pleistocene Africa, after which there followed a complex migration pattern."
^^So we have several different populations coming out of Africa. It has nothing to do with "Race", just the diverse group variants within Africa, migrating out at various times.
Dude, you have failed, and ironically, debunk your own arguments, with your own "supporting" references.
Africans resemble African apes and Chinese people resemble Asian apes and the white man reflects God
LOLLL!! best comment ever!!!
who'd have thought studied ignorance, utter tediousness, and thoughtlessness would make for such an effective defense strategy?
Anyone who's ever argued anything against True Believers (or folks with large investments in their positions), on any side and in any political/social/religious camp.
Too Tall Jones said:
From 1960 to 1990 for example, states with larger black welfare populations offered significantly LOWER welfare benefits, than in states with larger white populations. In essence, white welfare recipients saw greater amounts of aid given than blacks proportionately in said states, even though whites overall are better off than blacks...
Again we see the total failure of logical thinking in Blacks. A state with a high fraction of Blacks is far less productive and has a higher ratio of welfare dependents, so cannot even consider the luxury of high welfare payments. A state with few Blacks and a fraction of indigents more characteristic of Whites can offer its Black indigents a nice living until they over-breed and invite all their family and friends... as they appear to have done in e.g. Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
See Cavalli-Sforza, 1994
The Piltdown Man of genetic studies; it was cobbled together out of parts to confirm what its maker desired to be true (or maybe it was just what he picked out of the Rorschach blot), but at the time the real scientists didn't have the evidence to debunk it. It's 2011 now, and genetic sequencing is something you can buy yourself as a birthday gift. Scientists have even found Neanderthal genetic contributions to non-African populations, something unknowable in 1994; draw your own conclusions.
OT and for what it's worth, I'll admit that I'm fat, but I own my domicile free and clear and also rent one at the job site which has plenty of space (2 BR, 2.5 BA) but no basement. I'm paying $900-odd a month for my own convenience, basically. If that's loserdom, I'm sure most of my critics are losers.
My point was that the issue was still being debated, and you know full well that it is.I didn't debunk myself in any way, I simply linked to articles that prove there is a debate backed by hard evidence on both sides, and there are many more papers and positions where those came from. Anyone who is interested can do more research into multiregionalism. The issue is far from settled. It's called the scientific method.
But again, you claim an OOA migration for a specific purpose, which is to allow modern Africans to lay claim to the modern accomplishments of Europeans.
And since modern Africans can't seem to maintain any type of modern civilization, your claim becomes an empty afrocentric attempt at bolstering self esteem. Try again.
Complete nonsense. Ethiopia is below the Sahara and is thus "sub-Saharan", not to mention the African kingdoms of the West like Mali. And ancient Egypt was populated fundamentally until the later eras of Hyskos, PErsians, Greeks, etc by tropical African peoples from south of the Sahara- as even "Afrocentric" critic Mary Lefkowitz attests.
And Ethiopia is a 3rd-world hellhole, and has never been on par with even the least developed of European nations. That's not a feather in your cap. And Ethiopia can't even claim the crutch of colonialism, since the Italian incursions there were fairly late, insignificant and largely repelled.
Nearly 1 billion blacks on the planet and your only trump cards are mentioning Ethiopia and ancient Egypt (which was not black).
A good, quick overview for anyone who is interested.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-multi-regional-evolution-dead.html
@OneSTDV: sorry, but I can't resist .....
@Camlost: Hey Cam, I'm curious to know what do you predict: Will the UW Badgers or the Michigan State Spartans be Big-10 champs and Rosebowl-bound by the end of the evening?
(I have my own prediction----- and I've been waiting long and hard for some 'Hail Mary Payback.')
Anyone who's ever argued anything against True Believers (or folks with large investments in their positions), on any side and in any political/social/religious camp.
Right, but that's the creepy part; why are people so personally invested in things that are bad for them and make no sense? I suppose the question answers itself; it is good for you, the way Stockholm Syndrome is good for you when you're held at gunpoint, but yeesh, the gun at their head's a bit abstract, innit?
I don't understand why people in the USSR could simultaneously bow to the State and hate it inside, but so many Anglophones can't walk and chew gum at the same time.
It's similar to how many people would rather believe paying taxes really is a mitzvah, rather than coerced robbery that they may have to pay, but certainly don't have to like.
But I was just telling a friend the other day how gov't employees can keep the seemingly mutually-exclusive "I'm a benefactor" and "I live on thievery" ideas in their heads; vampires may have just done away with their reflections, but people still have to be able to look in the mirror.
The herd instinct, in short.
@ttj -
where to start, where to start
'^Mere presentism. Before the recent rise of Europe, China was the leading economic and technological nation as shown even by conservative scholars such as Thomas yada yada.'
Well of course it presentism. Nobody denies there have been other civilisations, or that other peoples couldn't have them. My point is that the present western civilisation tops them all in terms of quality of life and technological advance. The chinese have been running their civilisation for quite a while and never achieved quite so much. They're well known for inventing gunpowder but not guns.
'As to mass migrations, actually the mass migrations within Asia are the largest over the span of history, dwarfing anything within "the West".'
So what? My point was that current migration patterns tell us where people want to live, also telling us which kind of people naturally form societies others naturally want to live in and get the benefits contained therein.
'And you are hopelessly misinformed as to your bogus claim: "why can no other cultures emulate those accomplishments?" Again, the peoples of Asia have not only emulated but surpassed Europe in numerous accomplishments. And in fact, Europe itself historically, is a massive borrower and copier and beneficiary of technologies developed elsewhere - from the key plant and animal domesticates introduced by the incoming Neolithic, to advanced improvements in metallurgy, pottery, construction etc. The peoples who brought such advances to Europe, resembled tropical Africans as credible scholars show (brace 2005, Holliday 2010, et al). The Greeks did what they did mostly on imported, not home grown technology. As the centuries rolled by there was the Arab era, again, benefitting Europe as technology from the east moved Westward to be adapted, copied and eventually improved, including advances in knowledge (the concept of zero for example is from India, algebra from the Middle East), steel-making, mining, engineering etc etc. Even the alphabet used by today;s Europeans is an import- derived from scripts developed in ancient Egypt, and modified by Semitic peoples like the Phonecians before finally filtering into Europe. Even the main European religion is something borrowed and copied from elsewhere- from a sub-tropical people in tn the Mideast. So spare me the talk about "emulation".. Who has borrowed and copied more than Europeans?'
Your points notwithstanding, rote copying is one thing. Europeans may not have invented the wheel, they can only point to the automobile. Not to mention (virtually) every other facet of the modern world.
Really your points, that other cultures invented lots of stuff (not disputed), serve only as a strawman for you to imply I claimed all technology or science to be European. My claim, the proof of which is evident to anyone less blinkered than yourself, is that European technological advances are unmatched by any previous civilisation. And that this fact is due to inherent (and very real) differences between European and other races.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7963/eurohybrids.jpg
Jones: I will say the following because, if you are reading this, I don't really want Afrocentists to make more fools of themselves*.
No researcher subsequent to this old paper really attempts to model Europeans as a a hybrid population of East Asians and Africans.
The FST differences actually don't really square if you do that. If Europeans were 1/5 African and 4/5 East Asian, which would explain their closer FST difference to Africans relative to East Asians (by about slightly less than a 1/5), they would have an FST with Africans 1/5 the size that they do with East Asians, if they were a simple hybrid.
But of course, they don't. European FST with East Asians is 2/3 their FST from Africans.
This confirms that Europeans are derived from a separate population from East Asians (and Africans), which is likely closer to Africans due to either a) bidirectional greater genetic flow between Europeans** and Africans (which makes sense since Europe is close), b) bidirectional greater genetic flow between Europeans and a more diverse population like Indians (which makes sense since Europe is close) or c) a lower degree of bottlenecking.
I would go for a greater degree of gene flow from Africans and Indians, but probably not from any kind of African neolithic "civilizing" missions of anything, just isolation by distance from hunter gatherers in the depths of prehistory.
The evidence doesn't really support "Europeans are slighlty Blasian" at all. And even if it did, they are phenotypically very different from Asian doods with a Black grandparent.
With regards to the limb evidence, there might be a "long legged colonist" issue there. We know that predominantly and very Near Eastern derived Linearbandkeramik people had "hyper polar" limbs in constrast to the Near Eastern people they were very related to (through mtDna evidence), but this is probably due to the fact that they were moving through rough terrain that gave an evolutionary advantage to short legs, not climatic selection.
*than they have already committed to making of themselves
**and by Europeans I include Middle Eastern people, because in a global context its basically the same, even if selection for IQ might be somewhat different (like Jews and Europeans and Chinese and Cambodians).
Europe itself historically, is a massive borrower and copier and beneficiary of technologies developed elsewhere
Europeans are somewhat like Mongols - people who were relatively pastoral and unsettled until late in history, but who tend to be smart in the present day, like the 100 IQ Mongols - and Japanese - descendents of the first farmers who were nonetheless late to build any real civilization, but became big players later on, after borrowing a lot from related peoples (West Asians in the case of Europeans, Chinese in the case of Japs).
Of course, the changes that Europe made to the world were much bigger than the Mongols or Japanese, and our earliest antecedents in the form of Greece and Rome were probably earlier and more impressive - but its a fairly good comparison.
We are all brainwashed to believe we're all the same and race plays no part in our differences. Open your eyes. Its so easy to see if you just look. We don't look the same. We don't act the same. There is a reason some score higher on tests or some can dunk a basketball. Its not a coincidence. We are genetically different in mo
re than appearance. There are always exceptions to the rule. Eminent raps or Obama becomes president. We still have to know we are different. No ones better but we are predisposed to do certain things better. We should stop kidding ourselves and accept the truth. We all know it but its not OK to say it. We are different.
Post a Comment